32 judges are required to examine the complete body of evidence, they are not bound to examine each and 114 every exhibit in the case file . 99. Finally, concerning the argument claiming an erroneous application of the law when classifying the crimes as terrorist offenses and the claim that the petitioners were blamed for the acts of third parties, the Appeals Court concluded that “in its August 22, 2004 ruling, the Angol Trial Court did not violate the provisions that the complainants are claiming, inasmuch as it fully applied the provisions of Law 18,314 and the presumptions established therein, which were the accusations brought by the 115 Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Mininco Lumber Company, S.A.” D. The criminal prosecution and conviction of Werkén Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe 1. The events that led to Víctor Ancalaf’s criminal prosecution 100. On the night of March 17, 2002, a truck belonging to the firm BOTEC, a contractor for the ENDESA Enterprise, was traveling along the “Guayali road” in the Alto Bío Bío sector, carrying material for the construction of the Ralco Dam, when it was stopped by a group of five persons, wearing hoods. One of the five was carrying a firearm. The hooded persons forced the truck driver to get out of the truck, 116 after which they hurled a Molotov cocktail inside the truck, which was destroyed in the blaze. 101. On March 19, 2002, the Governor of the Province of Bío Bío filed a complaint with the Concepción Appeals Court based on Article 10 of Law 18,314, and requested that a judicial inquiry be instituted to investigate and punish the party responsible for the attack on the BROTEC truck, which he described as a terrorist attack. When he filed this complaint, the Governor also made reference to two 117 previous attacks on cargo vehicles, one on September 29, 2001, and the second on March 3, 2002. 114 Decision of the Temuco Appeals Court, dated October 13, 2004, attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. Consideranda One of that decision summarizes the grounds for nullification that the complainants invoked: “That the grounds cited in the various motions filed by JOSE HUENCHUNAO MARIÑAN, PATRICIA ROXANA TRONCOSO ROBLES, JUAN PATRICIO MARILEO SARAVIA, JOSE FLORENCIO JAIME MARILEO SARAVIA and JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN seeking to have their convictions overturned, include the one contemplated in Article 374-e) in relation to Article 342-c, all provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of the fact that the lower court failed to weigh relevant evidence, thereby violating that article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both with respect to the evidence introduced by the public prosecutor and the evidence introduced by the defense in each particular case. The motion filed by JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN also claimed that the way in which a portion of the testimony was assessed was a violation of the principles of logic and experience, since he claimed there was contradiction in the assessment of the testimony given by JUAN IGNACIO QUEIPUL LEVINAO who in Consideranda 17 incriminates JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN when, according to the complainant, it was clear that he did not know the accused, since he was unable to recognize him at the hearing and identified him as the one wearing a green jacket, when he was actually wearing a blue jacket.” 115 Decision of the Temuco Appeals Court, dated October 13, 2004, attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. Consideranda One of that decision summarizes the grounds for nullification that the complainants invoked: “That the grounds cited in the various motions filed by JOSE HUENCHUNAO MARIÑAN, PATRICIA ROXANA TRONCOSO ROBLES, JUAN PATRICIO MARILEO SARAVIA, JOSE FLORENCIO JAIME MARILEO SARAVIA and JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN seeking to have their convictions overturned, include the one contemplated in Article 374-e) in relation to Article 342-c, all provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of the fact that the lower court failed to weigh relevant evidence, thereby violating that article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both with respect to the evidence introduced by the public prosecutor and the evidence introduced by the defense in each particular case. The motion filed by JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN also claimed that the way in which a portion of the testimony was assessed was a violation of the principles of logic and experience, since he claimed there was contradiction in the assessment of the testimony given by JUAN IGNACIO QUEIPUL LEVINAO who in Consideranda 17 incriminates JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN when, according to the complainant, it was clear that he did not know the accused, since he was unable to recognize him at the hearing and identified him as the one wearing a green jacket, when he was actually wearing a blue jacket.” 116 Original petition that Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, 69 authorities, leaders, and members of the Mapuche indigenous people and three attorneys filed with the IACHR, received May 20, 2005. Not contested by the State 117 Original petition that Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, 69 authorities, leaders and members of the Mapuche indigenous people and three attorneys filed with the IACHR, received May 20, 2005, p. 4. Not contested by the State.